Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds useful context about what the listing contains: property names, canonical units, and sort direction. It does not discuss pagination or exact return shape, but with annotations covering safety the bar is lower.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the returned data and then the intended downstream use. No filler; every clause adds useful information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter read-only catalog with no output schema, the description gives enough return-value context to call it correctly. The optional query filter is left to the schema, which is acceptable given 100% schema coverage. Only minor details about exact result format are omitted.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, including documentation for the optional query filter, so parameter meaning is already fully provided by the schema. The description never mentions the query filter or its behavior, adding no parameter information beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description identifies the resource (property names) and the metadata returned (canonical unit, whether higher or lower is better), making it clear this is a property catalog rather than a material search. It also points to get_material and compare, helping distinguish it from those siblings. It lacks an explicit verb like "list," but the purpose is still clear.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It tells the agent to use the returned names with get_material and compare, establishing the intended downstream workflow. It does not state when not to use this tool or name an alternative listing tool, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.